@thinair and tavolon: You guys are nuts. Look again: Usrey (the SG) had 13 points on 8 possessions used - 4 FGA, 3 trips to the line (6 fta / 2 shots per attempt), 1 TO. That's 1.625 points per possession, which is absolutely stellar. He also had a rebound and committed only one foul and the opposing starting SG didn't go off, so it's not like his defenses was terrible either.

Nuts? I guess, but nothing you just said influences my opinion whatsoever. I can't remember at time when PPP was taken into consideration for player of the game. Having a rebound and commit only one foul is nothing to brag about. Sorry, but I'm sticking with the PG 100%.

From what I've seen, assists in HD are a lot harder to come by in bunches for PGs than in RL. That's pretty impressive that the PG was that good of a facilitator off the bench - the 3 steals are a cherry on top, and are probably what put him over the SG.

Posted by thinair on 5/3/2013 11:08:00 AM (view original):Yeah it's not even close really. He without a doubt had the best game imo for the winning team.

I guess you didn't see Ursey's stats

What's so outstanding about Ursey's stats? The 1 rebound, the 1 assist, the 1 steal? Sure he had 13 points, but what else stands out so much? The only other guy I would even consider besides Jacobs is Johnny Carpenter and his 4 turnovers pretty much disqualifies him. Hell, for my money Billy Viveros had just as good of a game as Ursey, if not better. Really interested in hearing why you think Ursey's numbers are so special?

For what it's worth, looking closely, I think the right guy was chosen.

On the one hand, Mully's got a point, those really ARE some pretty ugly overall stats for a Player of the Game. But, on the other hand, when comparing him to everyone else on his team, I still believe that the right player was chosen. We all have our own opinions of course, and this certainly isn't cut and dried, and you could probably make a decent argument for a couple of different players, but again, I think they got the right guy.

Incidentally, does anyone here remember when the POTG didn't automatically have to come from the winning team? That was a long, long while ago and I guess I'm showing my HD "age", but it did used to happen where a player from the losing team could be named Player of the Game. I think the change was made because there were coaches who would load up all of their distro onto one player in order for him to score a ton of points and have a chance to get drafted and the POTG program would almost always choose that player, whether his team had won or lost. It was changed in order to rectify that kind of scenario and it was a good change (kind of). I still think that a POTG could come from the losing team, but I also believe that he should have a huge "all around" game (a stat stuffer kind of game) in order to be selected, not just drop in a ton of points while his team got crushed.

Posted by emy1013 on 5/4/2013 12:53:00 AM (view original):On the one hand, Mully's got a point, those really ARE some pretty ugly overall stats for a Player of the Game. But, on the other hand, when comparing him to everyone else on his team, I still believe that the right player was chosen. We all have our own opinions of course, and this certainly isn't cut and dried, and you could probably make a decent argument for a couple of different players, but again, I think they got the right guy.

Incidentally, does anyone here remember when the POTG didn't automatically have to come from the winning team? That was a long, long while ago and I guess I'm showing my HD "age", but it did used to happen where a player from the losing team could be named Player of the Game. I think the change was made because there were coaches who would load up all of their distro onto one player in order for him to score a ton of points and have a chance to get drafted and the POTG program would almost always choose that player, whether his team had won or lost. It was changed in order to rectify that kind of scenario and it was a good change (kind of). I still think that a POTG could come from the losing team, but I also believe that he should have a huge "all around" game (a stat stuffer kind of game) in order to be selected, not just drop in a ton of points while his team got crushed.

emy, i dont think you have to worry about showing your age here =) by general level of grumpiness, i think we all assume you are *at least* 110, maybe 120 years old ;)

Posted by emy1013 on 5/4/2013 12:53:00 AM (view original):On the one hand, Mully's got a point, those really ARE some pretty ugly overall stats for a Player of the Game. But, on the other hand, when comparing him to everyone else on his team, I still believe that the right player was chosen. We all have our own opinions of course, and this certainly isn't cut and dried, and you could probably make a decent argument for a couple of different players, but again, I think they got the right guy.

Incidentally, does anyone here remember when the POTG didn't automatically have to come from the winning team? That was a long, long while ago and I guess I'm showing my HD "age", but it did used to happen where a player from the losing team could be named Player of the Game. I think the change was made because there were coaches who would load up all of their distro onto one player in order for him to score a ton of points and have a chance to get drafted and the POTG program would almost always choose that player, whether his team had won or lost. It was changed in order to rectify that kind of scenario and it was a good change (kind of). I still think that a POTG could come from the losing team, but I also believe that he should have a huge "all around" game (a stat stuffer kind of game) in order to be selected, not just drop in a ton of points while his team got crushed.

emy, i dont think you have to worry about showing your age here =) by general level of grumpiness, i think we all assume you are *at least* 110, maybe 120 years old ;)

Close Gill......very close. 107 and 1/2. Yes, when you get to be this old, believe me, you count every one of those halves...........( you smartass)! ;^)